High court says a wiretap warrant, rather than a general warrant, is required.

While down here in America, cops can (and do) routinely and easily get text messages from a mobile provider, in the Great White North it’s a different story.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a 5-2 decision on Wednesday, agreed that police need a warrant order to obtain live, real-time text messages from a mobile provider. A warrant order is an even higher standard than a general warrant, which the Canadian government argued was sufficient.

The case involves Telus, one of Canada’s largest mobile firms. As described in the decision, “unlike most telecommunications service providers, Telus routinely makes electronic copies of all the text messages sent or received by its subscribers and stores them on a computer database for a brief period of time.”

As the result of a criminal investigation in Owen Sound, Ontario (119 miles, or 190 kilometers, northwest of Toronto) local police obtained a general warrant as defined under sections 487.01 and 487.02 of the Canadian Criminal Code. They wanted copies of “any stored text messages sent or received by two Telus subscribers.” Telus, in defending its customers, applied to quash the warrant, “arguing that the prospective, daily acquisition of text messages from their computer database constitutes an interception of private communications and therefore requires authorization under the wiretap authorization provisions in Part VI of the Code.”

The Canadian government (“the Crown”), meanwhile, argued that a general warrant should be all that is necessary to acquire text messages under the Canadian Criminal Code. The Supreme Court, in its decision, sided with Telus, saying that indeed, police need a wiretap to obtain text messages in real-time, or near real-time.

“Technical differences inherent in new technology should not determine the scope of protection afforded to private communications. The only practical difference between text messaging and traditional voice communications is the transmission process. This distinction should not take text messages outside the protection to which private communications are entitled under Part VI.”

This story also throws in cases (in the US) where cops physically obtained a man's phone and used it, but it's not clear to me how much this Supreme Court of Canada decision would impact that scenario in Canada. The Court ruled that cops need a warrant to ask service providers for text messages, but it did not rule on if they need a warrant to access text messages from a phone.

For this specific issue, the Supreme Court of Ontario ruled that cops need a warrant to search a suspect's phone if it is password-protected. I don't think law enforcement ever tried to impersonate someone else through their phone in Canada.

This story also throws in cases (in the US) where cops physically obtained a man's phone and used it, but it's not clear to me how much this Supreme Court of Canada decision would impact that scenario in Canada. The Court ruled that cops need a warrant to ask service providers for text messages, but it did not rule on if they need a warrant to access text messages from a phone.

For this specific issue, the Supreme Court of Ontario ruled that cops need a warrant to search a suspect's phone if it is password-protected. I don't think law enforcement ever tried to impersonate someone else through their phone in Canada.

Because of the Supreme Court ruling, this now applicable for every provider in the country. Unless you're wishes to express your gratitude for their efforts through becoming a customer, in which case, kudos.

Because of the Supreme Court ruling, this now applicable for every provider in the country. Unless you're wishes to express your gratitude for their efforts through becoming a customer, in which case, kudos.

Actually, Koodo wireless is owned by Telus(Sorry, couldn't help myself)

Because of the Supreme Court ruling, this now applicable for every provider in the country...

I second this. The highest power in Canada is our court system, ultimately, not our Parliament, no matter what anyone says. Even though in law this is not true, in reality, it is. Our court system is generally pro-individual, not pro-corporation, which is the opposite of the US.

Really? The gun registry is out (and was never enforced, at least in Alberta), I know a ton of people with fire arms. Assualt rifles, hunting rifles, hand guns, you name it.

Gun control is a joke, and will always be.

The main difference between Canada and the US is that in order to get a gun (legally) you need to take a Canadian Firearms Safety Course, submit the exam results, your application and fee for your PAL to the feds. Wait 28 days.

This gets you the ability to own a limited set of rifles and shotguns.

for Restricted weapons there's another exam and additional fees. No waiting time applies.

Makes me proud to be Canadian. Gun control too. When I applied for my FAC (the old version of a PAL) in the '90's, I had to also submit references, who were ACTUALLY CONTACTED by authorities, to verify that I was sane enough to own, possess, or legally use a lethal weapon. Hand guns remain a restricted weapon and require the extra qualifications to own or use.

The main difference between Canada and the US is that in order to get a gun (legally) you need to take a Canadian Firearms Safety Course, submit the exam results, your application and fee for your PAL to the feds. Wait 28 days.

This gets you the ability to own a limited set of rifles and shotguns.

for Restricted weapons there's another exam and additional fees. No waiting time applies.

Also: I happen to know the lady who reviews all the Restricted applications for Alberta. Believe me when I say she is a hardass. If there is anything even remotely iffy about your security check or your exam...fugeddaboutit.

jeraldjunkmail...I second this. The highest power in Canada is our court system, ultimately, not our Parliament, no matter what anyone says. Even though in law this is not true, in reality, it is. Our court system is generally pro-individual, not pro-corporation, which is the opposite of the US.

It is true in law. Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides:

52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

Unlike other countries such as Germany and South Africa, Canada does not have a dedicated Constitutional Court to deal with the interpretation of the Constitution. It relies on ordinary courts that interpret laws and by “a tradition of necessity” the Constitution, from Law Society of Upper Canada v Skapinker, [1984] 1 SCR 357, 9 DLR (4th) 161 (SCC) at para 11. <http://canlii.ca/t/1czjg>

The combination of the supremacy of the Constitution and the courts interpretive function have significantly changed the courts role in Canadian society. Now courts are called on to decide on what laws, passed by parliament and legislatures, are constitutional. Previously, under the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy, parliament and legislatures could make any law they wished within their proper jurisdiction.

The application of certain Charter Rights to a particular statute can be limited by a legislative declaration under section 33 of the Constitution although this is rare. Charter Rights including those under section 2 (Fundamental Rights) and sections seven to 15 (Legal Rights) are subject to legislative declaration, by both federal and provincial legislatures, which immunizes particular statutes from the Charter. This “notwithstanding clause” reflected an effort to maintain parliamentary sovereignty in certain areas and must be renewed every five years under section 33 (3) to (5). See: David Johansen and Philip Rosen, “The Notwithstanding Clause of the Charter” (Publication No. BP-194-E Ottawa: Library of Parliament, 2008). Online at: <http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/bp194-e.htm>.

shawnhcorey wrote:Telus has no rights to record your messages. The only information they can store (without your permission) is what is needed for billing purposes. Everything else is an invasion of privacy.

You may be correct (Telus is the only provider that keeps your text messages for 30 day) but it is in their Terms of Service: <http://portal.mytelus.com/Terms>

"In relation to all telecommunications services provided by TELUS hereunder, unless you provide express consent or disclosure is pursuant to a legal power, all information kept by TELUS regarding you, other than your name, address and listed telephone number, is confidential and may not be disclosed by TELUS to anyone other than you; a person.....

shawnhcorey wrote:Telus has no rights to record your messages. The only information they can store (without your permission) is what is needed for billing purposes. Everything else is an invasion of privacy.

You may be correct (Telus is the only provider that keeps your text messages for 30 day) but it is in their Terms of Service: <http://portal.mytelus.com/Terms>

Any contract that violates the Charter of Rights is illegal and void.Don't assume everything in a contract is legal.